Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1142 (RAJ)

Tinku @ Anwar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 10.8.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2011, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment dated 24.7.2009 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, North Kota in Criminal Case No. 99 of 2008, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Sections 304A and 279 IPC as under, has been affirmed:- Under Section 341 IPC: To undergo 1 month's SI Under Section 323/34 IPC: Three months' SI Under Section 324/34 IPC: Six months' SI with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. Brief facts of the case are as under:- “On 13.9.2006, on the basis of written report of complainant Gopal, a First Information Report No. 196 of 2006 came to be registered against the accused petitioner by the police. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 341, 324, 34 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act before the trial court. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The Sessions Court discharged the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 IPC and remanded the matter back to the court below for trial. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 341, 323/34, 324/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act and the same were readover to him. The accused petitioner denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examined its witnesses. Thereafter the statement of accused petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr PC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court passed the judgment dated 24.7.2009, acquitting the petitioner for the offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act, but convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Sections 341, 323/34 and 324/34 IPC, as indicated above. Against the said judgment dated 24.7.2009 passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court, but the appellate court vide judgment dated 10.8.2011 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this Cr. revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. Against the said judgment dated 24.7.2009 passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court, but the appellate court vide judgment dated 10.8.2011 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this Cr. revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. Without going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the courts below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact the matter pertains to the year 2006 which is about 8 years ago from today approximately, the accused petitioner has remained in confinment for about 3 months; the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, having a large family dependent upon him; and he is not the habitual offender; either he should be given the benefit of probation and if not, then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it proper to release the accused petitioner on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The conviction of the petitioner as awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court is maintained. (ii) The sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iii) The sentence of the accused petitioner was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.